Eyewitness Identification Research Laboratory

 

Reference list for

ŅComposites, Composite Construction

and Related ThingsÓ

 

 

I. Summary. (1000 words)

 

The following is taken from the ŅconclusionsÓ section in Davies, G. & Valentine, T. (2007). Facial Composites-Forensic Utility and Psychological Research. in R.C.L. Lindsay,. D.F. Ross, J.D. Read & M.P. Toglia, Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology, Vol. 2, Memory for People. Mahwah, NJ- Lawrence Erlbaum.

 

Skilled police artists remain the benchmark against which all systems must be compared, and no mechanical or software system has yet to equal or outperform them. However, although artists are quick to trumpet their successes, they have also had their failures, and the overall level of accuracy is hard to compute for a skill so idiosyncratic and poorly understood. After three decades of intensive research, it is still unclear for any technique what predicts or postdicts a successful interview. Witnesses are inconsistent in the quality of composites they reproduce from one face to another and over time (Davies et al., 1978a). Neither the witnesses themselves nor the operators are effective in estimating when a likeness is likely to prove to be of good or poor quality (Kovera et al., 1997). A good likeness appears to depend upon an elusive combination of a face whose features may be readily reproduced, an observant and articulate witness, and a skilled operator who knows how to ask the right questions (Davies et al., 1983).

This is not to deny the progress that has been achieved through research and development. Some of the more obvious sources of error evident in earlier systems have been identiŽed and removed. These include a lack of relevant features and sufficient ßexibility of size and positioning to model the full range of faces. For the male Caucasian face, most software systems now allow the skilled operator to fashion a recognizable likeness from life or a photograph (Brace et al., 2000; Cutler et al., 1988). Likewise, fourth generation systems permit witnesses to work on total faces rather than use the traditional approach emphasizing individual features (Gibson et al., 2003).

One area of continuing controversy concerns the possible inhibiting effect of verbal description on facial recall. Dodson, Johnson, and Schooler (1997) demonstrated experimentally that recognition for faces can be impaired if the observer is required to verbally describe them prior to recognition: the "verbal overshadowing effect." It has been recently demonstrated that providing detailed verbal descriptions impairs the witness's ability to subsequently select appropriate features (Wells, Charman, & Olson, 2005). Clark (2000), too, reported that for E-Žt, the recommended practice of re-interviewing the witness about the suspect's appearance midway through construction had a detrimental effect upon Žnal composite quality, a Žnding consistent with overshadowing. However, verbal overshadowing is not an inevitable consequence of describing a face, even under laboratory conditions (Meissner & Brigham, 2001), and delay serves to re- duce any potential impairment (Finger & Pezdek, 1999). The conditions under which verbal encoding interferes with facial memory remain poorly understood. The retrieval- based interference explanation assumes that verbalization impairs the original memory trace of the face (Meissner, Brigham, & Kelley, 2001). However, in some circumstances it appears that verbal recall and visual recognition processes function independently (Davies, 1986a), and an explanation of the verbal overshadowing effect in terms of a criterion shift seems at least as plausible (Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004). 

One consideration that perhaps has been insufficiently challenged is the belief that memory for a brießy observed and unfamiliar face is sufŽciently detailed to construct a successful composite. This belief appears to be based on the frequently iterated statement that face recognition is far superior to face recall, and our ability to recognize faces, often after many years, testiŽes to a robust and unique encoding system for all faces. More recent research on face recognition suggests, however, that familiar and unfamiliar faces are encoded in different ways which results in striking differences in subsequent ease of recognition (Bruce & Young, 1998). Even degraded images of familiar individuals caught on CCTV are readily recognized (Burton, Wilson, Cowan, & Bruce, 1999), but unfamiliar faces seen on CCTV are matched to an appropriate photograph very in- accurately indeed, even when participants have continuous access to an image of the face as they carry out the task (Bruce, Henderson, Newman, & Burton, 2001; Davies & Thasen, 2000; Kemp, Howell, & Pike, 1997).

Research from other areas of face processing suggests that memory for the appearance of novel faces may be fragmentary and inadequate. Ellis (1984) noted that verbal descriptions, both in the presence of the face and from memory, were selective and in- complete. Even in recognition memory for novel faces, faces that share certain dominant attributes such as hair style and face shape are readily confused (Davies, Shepherd, & Ellis, 1979). Learning a face takes time and repeated exposure under different viewing conditions (Bruce, 2003).

Schema theory has demonstrated that where memory is imperfect, then plausible re- construction is likely to take place, which may or may not be accurate (Brewer, 1996). In a task like constructing a face, which requires exhaustive recall of all features, there are opportunities for attitudes and assumptions to Žll gaps and color the constructive process. Some years ago, Shepherd, Ellis, McMurran, and Davies (1978) demonstrated the impact of negative and positive stereotypes on Photo& reconstructions. Witnesses constructed composites that were judged as more intelligent and handsome when they were told the man was a lifeboat captain than when he was described as a murderer (see also Oliver, Jackson, Moses, & DangerŽeld, 2004, for an example of the inßuence of racial stereotyping on face recall). More recently, Davies and Oldman (1999) replicated the Žnding of Shepherd et al. with the use of familiar faces and showed that attitudes also inßuenced quality of likeness. Faces made by persons who disliked the target were of a better quality than those made by persons who liked them. As the authors observed, contempt appears to breed familiarity.

It seems likely that the largest distortions due to affect and stereotyping will occur on unfamiliar faces viewed for ßeeting periods, often the conditions prevailing when witnesses to crime view actual suspects. In these circumstances, it may be that for many witnesses, composite production imposes an unrealistic burden upon them, with inevitable consequences for composite quality, irrespective of the system employed. Perhaps, in the light of recent Žndings, composite production should be reserved for witnesses who have had extensive experience of the person concerned. Perhaps feature selection should be conŽned to items mentioned by witnesses in their verbal descriptions. Intelligent systems could be developed that could accurately "suggest" missing features from existing choices of other parts of the face, rather than rely on guesses fueled by feelings and stereotypes. 

Probably the Žrst encounter between psychologists and the Identikit was described by Connolly and McKeller (1963): "Having seen this device, and having been subjects in a demonstration, we consider this to be a marked improvement [over verbal descriptions] but also a 'psychological Pandora's box'" (p. 22), adding that "the problem of identiŽcation would repay psychological enquiry" (p. 23). Four generations of composite systems have now been reviewed together with the psychological enquiry they have provoked. Although measurable progress has been made and all systems may claim successes, perhaps the quest for the perfect system may be illusory and we must learn to live within the limitations of witness memory.

 

 

 

II. Meta Analyses and other literature reviews.

 

Davies, G. & Valentine, T. (2007). Facial Composites-Forensic Utility and Psychological Research. in R.C.L. Lindsay,. D.F. Ross, J.D. Read & M.P. Toglia, Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology, Vol. 2, Memory for People. Mahwah, NJ- Lawrence Erlbaum

 

 

III. Empirical Studies published since the latest meta-analysis.

 

 

 

 

IV. Classic studies.

 

Anything on composites by Hadyn Ellis, Graham Davies and/or John Shepherd, in any combination.

 

 

V. List of studies. (t = mainly theoretical; e = mainly empirical).

 

Al Qayedi A; Clark AF. (1999). Algorithm for face and facial feature location based on grey scale information and facial geometry. IEE Conference Publication. n 465 II , p 625 629

Allison, H. C. (1973). Personal identiŽcation. Boston: Holbrook Press.

Archer K., Coughlan K., Forsey, D. & Struben S. (1998). Software tools for craniofacial growth and reconstruction. Proceedings Graphics Interface. p 73 81

Aspley Limited. (1993). E-fit. Hatfield, UK: Ashley Limited.

Atick, J. J., Griffin, P. A. & Redlich, A. N. (1996). Statistical approach to shape from shading: Reconstruction of three dimensional face surfaces from single two dimensional images. Neural Computation, 8(6): 1321 1340

Baenninger, M. (1994). The development of face recognition: Featural or configurationalprocessing? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 57(3): 377 396

Bennett, P. (1986). Face recall: A police perspective. Human Learning, 5,197-202.

Benson, P. J., & Perrett, D. L. (1991). Perception and recognition of photographic quality cari- catures: Implications for the recognition of natural images. European Journal of Cognitive Psy- chology, 3,103-135.

Bocklet, R. (1987, August). Suspect sketches computerized for faster identification.  Law and Order, 61-63.

Boylan, J. (2000) Portraits of guilt: The woman who proŽles the faces of America's deadliest criminals. New York: Pocket Books

Brace, N. A., Pike, G. E., & Kemp, It I. (2000). Investigating E-Žt using famous faces. In A. Czerederecka, T. Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska, & J. Wojcikiewicz (Eds.), Forensic psychology and law: Traditional questions and new ideas (pp. 272-276). Krakow, Poland: Institute of Forensic Research Publishers.

Brace, N. A., Pike, G. E., Kemp, R. I., Turner, I., 67. Bennett, P. (2001) Does the presentation of multiple facial composites improve suspect identiŽcation? Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, the Open University.

Brewer, M. B. (1996). When stereotypes lead to stereotyping: The use of stereotypes in person perception. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 254-275). New York: Guilford.

Brigham, J. C.& Cairns, D. L. (1988). The effect of mugshot inspections on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 18(16, Pt 2): 1394 1410

Brown, E., Deffenbacher, K., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(3), 311 318.

Bruce, V. (1988). Recognizing faces. Sussex, U.K.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bruce, V. (1990). Face recognition. In M. W. Eysenck (Ed.), Cognitive Psychology: An International Review. (pp. 221 263), London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Bruce, V. (2003). Getting to know you - How we learn new faces. Final report to the Economic and Social Research Council. Swindon: ESRC -

Bruce, V., & Young, A. (1998). In the eye of the beholder: The science of face perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bruce, V., Hanna, E., Dench, N., Healey, P. & Burton, M. (1992).. The importance of mass in line drawings of faces. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 619 628.

Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P J B, Burton, A M. & Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captured on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. Vol 5(4): 339 360

Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Newman, C., & Burton, A. M. (2001). Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 207-218.

Bruce, V., Ness, H., Hancock, P. J., Newman, C., & Rarity, J. (2002). Four heads are better than one: Combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 894-902.

Bruyer, R. & Crispeels, G. (1992). Expertise in person recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 501 504.

Burton, A. M., Wilson, S., Cowan, M., & Bruce, V. (1999). Face recognition in poor-quality video. Psychological Science, 10, 243-248.

Byatt, G., & Rhodes, G. (1998). Recognition of own-race and other-race caricatures: Implications for models of face recognition. Vision Research, 38,2455-2468.

Cabeza, R. & Kato, T. (2000). Features are also important: Contributions of featural and configural processing to face recognition. Psychological Science, 11(5), 429 433.

Cabeza, Roberto; Bruce, Vicki; Kato, Takashi; Oda, Masaomi. (1999).The prototype effect in face recognition: Extension and limits. Memory and Cognition. 27(1): 139 151

Campbell, Ruth; Walker, Jane; Baron Cohen, Simon. The development of differential use of inner and outer face features in familiar face identification. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1995 Apr; Vol 59(2): 196 210

Chance, J. & Goldstein, A.G. (1976). Recognition of faces and verbal labels. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 384 386.

Chance, J., & Goldstein, A. (1996). The other-race effect and eyewitness identiŽcation. In S. L. Sporer, R. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identiŽcation (pp. 153-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chiroro, P., & Valentine, T. (1995). An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 879-894.

Christie, D. F. M. & Ellis, H. D. (1981). Photofit constructions versus verbal descriptions of faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 358 363.

Christie, D., & Ellis H. (1981). PhotoŽt constructions versus verbal descriptions of faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,358-363.

Christie, D., Davies, G., Shepherd, J., & Ellis, H. (1981). Evaluating a new computer-based system for face recall. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 209-218.

Chuang Mao Meng; Chang Ruey Feng; Huang Yu Len. Automatic facial feature extraction in model based coding. Journal of Information Science and Engineering. v 16 n 3 May 2000, p 447 458

Clare, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Verbalising facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal over- shadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30,739-755.

Clark, C. (2000). Interviewing for facial identiŽcation. Report to the Home OfŽce Police and Reducing Crime Unit. London: Home OfŽce.

Clifford, B. R., & Davies, G. M. (1989). Procedures for obtaining identiŽcation evidence. In D. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in investigation and evidence (pp. 47-96). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Comish, S. E.. Recognition of facial stimuli following an intervening task involving the Identi kit. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1987 Aug; Vol 72(3): 488 491

Connolly, K., & McKeller, P. (1963). Forensic psychology. Bulletin of the British PsychologicalSociety, 16,16-24.

Cootes, T. F., & Taylor, C. J. (2001). Statistical models of appearance for medical image analysis and computer vision. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, 3,138-147.

Cootes, T. F., Edwards, G. J., & Taylor, C. J. (1998). Active appearance models. In H. Burkhardt & B. Neumann (Eds.), Proceceeding of the European Conference on Computer Vision (Vol. 2, pp. 484-498). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Cormack J. (1979). The police artists' reference. Pewaukee, WI: Waukesha County Technical Institute.

Craw, I., & Cameron, P. (1991). Parametising images for recognition and reconstruction. In P. Mowforth (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 1991 (pp. 367-370). New York: Turing Institute Press and Springer-Verlag.

Cutler, B. L. & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology, & the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Jury decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-56.

Cutler, B., Stocklein, C. J., & Penrod, S. (1988). Empirical examination of a computerised facial composite production system. Forensic Reports, 1, 207-218.

Davies, G M., Ellis, H., & Shepherd, J., (1985). Wanted faces that fit the bill: Indentikit or Photofit pictures issued by police are often built on misleading assumptions. New Scientist,106, p. 26 9

Davies, G. & Jenkins, F. (1985). Witnesses can be Misled By Police Composite Pictures. in  Ellis, Jeeves, Newcombe, & Young (Eds.), Aspects of Face Processing (NATO ISI Series). (pp. 154-162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands- Martinus Nijhoff.pdf

Davies, G. M. & Christie, D. (1982). Face recall: An examination of some factors limiting composite production accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (1), 103 109.

Davies, G. M. (1981). Face recall systems. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Perceiving and Remembering Faces (pp. 227 250). London: Academic Press.

Davies, G. M. (1983). Composite systems for recalling faces: Helping the police with their enquiries. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the Past: Proceedings of the Stockholm Symposium on Witness Psychology (pp. 299 313). Deventer: Kluwer.

Davies, G. M. (1983). Forensic face recall: The role of visual and verbal information. In S. Lloyd Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating Witness Evidence: Recent Psychological Research and New Perspectives (pp. 103 136). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Davies, G. M. (1986). Capturing likenesses in eyewitness composites: The police artist and his rivals. Medical Science and Law, 26, 283 90.

Davies, G. M. (1986). The recall and reconstruction of faces: Implications for theory and practice. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, & A. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 388-398). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Nijhoff.

Davies, G. M. (1996). Children's identiŽcation evidence. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identiŽcation (pp. 233-258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Davies, G. M. (Ed.). (1981). Face recall systems. London: Academic Press.

Davies, G. M., & Milne, A. (1985). Eyewitness composite production: A function of mental or physical reinstatement of context. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 209 220.

Davies, G. M., Ellis, H. D., & Shepherd, J. W. (1985, May 16). Wanted-Faces that Žt the bill. New Scientist, no. 1456,26-29.

Davies, G. M., Ellis, H., & Shepherd, J. (1978). Face identification: The influence of delay upon accuracy of Photofit construction. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 76, 35 42.

Davies, G. M., Ellis, H., & Shepherd, J. (1981). Perceiving and remembering faces. London: Academic Press.

Davies, G. M., Ellis, Hadyn; Shepherd, John. Cue saliency in faces as assessed by the Photofit technique. Perception. 1977; Vol 6(3): 263 269

Davies, G. M., Milne, A., & Shepherd, J. W. (1983). Searching for operator skills in face composite reproduction. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 11, 405 409.

Davies, G. M., Shepherd, J. W., & Ellis, H. D. (1978). Remembering faces: Acknowledging our limitations. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 18, 19 24.

Davies, G. M., Shepherd, J. W., & Ellis, H. D. (1979). Similarity effects in face recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 92,507-523.

Davies, G., & Little, M. (1990). Drawing on memory: Exploring the expertise of a police artist. Medicine, Science, & the Law, 30(4), 345 353.

Davies, G., & Milne, A. (1985). Eyewitness composite production. A function of mental or physical reinstatement of context. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 209-222.

Davies, G., & Thasen, S. (2000). Closed-circuit television: How effective an identiŽcation aid? British Journal of Psychology, 91,411-426

Davies, G., Ellis, H. & Shepherd, J. (1978). Face identification- The influence of delay upon accuracy of photofit construction. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 6(1), 35-42

Davies, G., Ellis, H. & Shepherd, J. (1978). Face identification- The influence of delay upon accuracy of photofit construction. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 6(1), 35-42.pdf

Davies, G., Ellis, H., & Shepherd, J. (1978). Face recognition accuracy as a function of mode of representation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,180-187.

Davies, G., Shepherd, J. W., Shepherd, J., Flin, R., & Ellis, H. (1986). Training skills in police PhotoŽt operators. Policing, 2,35-46.

Davies, G., & Oldman, H. (1999). The impact of character attribution on composite production: A real world effect? Current Psychology, 18,128-139.

Davies, G.M. (1983). Forensic face recall: the role of visual and verbal information. In S.M.A. Lloyd Bostock & B.R Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence : recent psychological research and new perspectives. (pp. 103 123). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.

Davies, G.M. (1996). Mistaken identification: Where law meets psychology head on. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 232 24 1.

Davies, G.M., van der Willik, P. & Mordson, L.J. (2000). Facial composite production: A comparison of mechanical and computer driven systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 119 124.

Davies, L. (1990). Drawing on memory: Exploring the expertise of a police artist. Medical Science and Law, 30(4), 345 353.

Davies. G. M. & Milne, A. (1985). Eyewitness composite production as a function of mental or physical reinstatement of context. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 12, 209 230.

Davies, G. & Valentine, T. (2007). Facial Composites-Forensic Utility and Psychological Research. in R.C.L. Lindsay,. D.F. Ross, J.D. Read & M.P. Toglia, Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology, Vol. 2, Memory for People. Mahwah, NJ- Lawrence Erlbaum

De Haan, M., Humphreys, K., & Johnson, M. (2002). Developing a brain specialized for face perception: A converging methods approach. Developmental Psychobiology, 40, 200-212.

Deffenbacher, K. & Horney, J. (1981). Psycho legal aspects of face identification. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Perceiving and Remembering Faces (pp. 201 226). London: Academic Press.

Dekle, Dawn Jeanine. The effects of testing delay and composite viewing on identification accuracy in lineups and showups.. Dissertation Abstracts International. 1993; Vol 54(5 B): 2791

Deregowski, J. B., Ellis, H. D., & Shepherd, J. W. (1975). Descriptions of white and black faces by white and black subjects. International Journal of Psychology, 10, 119 123.

Diamond, R. & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(2), 107 117.

Dodson, C. S., Johnson, M. K., & Schooler, J. W. (1997). The verbal overshadowing effect: Source confusion or strategy shift? Memory & Cognition, 25,129-139.

Domingo, F. (1984, June). Composite art: The need for standardization. IdentiŽcation News, pp. 7-15.

Ellis, Andrew W.; Burton, A. Mike; Young, Andy; Flude, Brenda M..(1997). Repetition priming between parts and wholes: Tests of a computational model of familiar face recognition. British Journal of Psychology. 88(4): 579 608

Ellis, H. D. & Shepherd, J. W. (1992). Face memory: Theory and practice. In Gruneberg, Morris, & Sykes, Eds.) Aspects of Memory, Vol 1 (pp. 136-143). London: Routledge.

Ellis, H. D. (1981). Theoretical aspects of face recognition. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Perceiving and Remembering Faces (pp. 171 197). London: Academic Press.

Ellis, H. D. (1984). Practical aspects of face memory. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives (pp. 2 37). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, H. D. (1984). Practical aspects of face memory. In G. Wells & E. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony (pp. 12-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, H. D. (1986). Face recall: A psychological perspective. Human Learning, 5, 189 196.

Ellis, H. D., Davies, G. M., & Shepherd, J. W. (1978). A critical examination of the Photo-fit system for recalling faces. Ergonomics, 21(4), 297-307.

Ellis, H. D., Davies, G. M.; McMurran, M. M.. Recall of White and Black faces by White and Black witnesses using the Photofit system. Human Factors. 1979 Feb; Vol 21(1): 55 59

Ellis, H. D., et al. (1989). Identification from a computer-driven retrieval shystem compared with a traditional mug-shot album serarch - a new tool for police investigations. Ergonomics, 32(2) 167-177.

Ellis, H. D., Shepherd, J., & Davies, G. (1975). An investigation of the use of the Photo-fit technique for recalling faces. British Journal of Psychology, 66(1), 29-37.

Ellis, H. D.; Davies, G. M.; Shepherd, J. W.. Remembering pictures of real and unreal faces: Some practical and theoretical considerations. British Journal of Psychology. 1978 Nov; Vol 69(4): 467 474

Ellis, H., Davies, G., & McMurran, M. (1979). Recall of white and black faces by white and black witnesses using the Photo& system. Human Factors, 21,55-59.

Ellis, H., Davies, G., & Shepherd J. (1978b). Remembering pictures of real and unreal faces: Some practical and theoretical considerations. British Journal of Psychology, 69,467-1174.

Ellis, H., Davies, G., & Shepherd, J. (1976). An investigation of the PhotoŽt system for recalling faces. Final report, grant no. HR 3123/1. Swindon: Social Science Research Council.

Ellis, H.D. & Shepherd, J.W. (1992). Face memory: Theory and practice. In Gruneberg, Morris, & Sykes, Eds.) Aspects of Memory, Vol 1 (pp. 136 143). London: Routledge.

Ellis, H.D., Davies, G.M. & Shepherd, J.W. (1978). A critical examination of the Photofit system for recalling faces. Ergonomics, 21, 297 307.

Ellis, H.D., Shepherd, J. & Davies, G. (1975). An investigation of the use of the photo-fit technique for recalling faces. British Journal of Psychology, 66(1), 29-37

Ellis, H.D., Shepherd, J.W. & Davies, G.M. (1975). An investigation of the use of the Photofit technique for recalling faces. British Journal of Psychology , 66, 409 26.

Ellis, H.D., Shepherd, J.W. & Davies, G.M. (1980). The deterioration of verbal descriptions over different delay intervals. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8, 101 106.

Ellis, H.D., Shepherd, J.W., Flin, R.H., & Davies, G.M. (1989). Identification from a computer driven retrieval system compared with a traditional mug shot album search: A new tool for police investigation. Ergonomics, 32, 167 177.

Fallshore, M. & Schooler, J. W. (1995). Verbal vulnerability of perceptual expertise. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1608 1623.

Faw, H. W. (1992). Recognition of unfamiliar faces: Procedural and methodological considerations. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 25 37.

Findley, K. A. & Scott, M. S. The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases, 2006 Wis. L. REV. 291, 299-304.

Finger, K., & Pezdek, K. (1999). The effect of the cognitive interview on face identiŽcation accuracy: Release from verbal overshadowing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 340-348.

Fisher, R. P. & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.

Flin, R., Markham, R., & Davies, D. (1989). Making faces: Developmental trends in the construction and recognition of Photofit face composites. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 131 145.

Frowd, C. D., Carson, D., Ness, H., McQuiston, D., Richardson, J., Baldwin, H. (2005). Contemporary composite techniques: The impact of a forensically-relevant target delay. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 63-75

Frowd, C. D., McQuiston-Surrett, D., Anandaciva, S., Ireland, C. E., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2007). An evaluation of U.S. systems for facial composite production. Ergonomics, 50 (12), 1987-1998

Frowd, C. D., McQuiston-Surrett, D., Kirkland, I., & Hancock, P. J. B. (2005). The process of facial composite production. In A. Czerederecka, T. Jaskiewicz-Obydzinska, R. Roesch, & J. Wojcikiewicz (Eds.), For. Psych & Law (pp. 140-152)

Frowd, C., Hancock, P. J. B., & Carson, D. (2004). EvalT: A holistic evolutionary facial imaging technique for creating composites. Association for Computing Machinery Transactions on Applied Psychology, 1, 1-21.

Frowd, C.D., Carson, D., Ness, H., Richardson, J., Morrison, L., McLanaghan, S., et al. (in press). A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime & Law.

Garcia, E., & Pyke, C. (1977). Portraits of crime. New York: Condor.

Gibling, F.. & Bennett. P. (1994). Artistic enhancement in the production of Photo FIT likenesses: An examination of its effectiveness in leading to suspect identification. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1,93 100.

Gibson, S., Pallares Bejarano, A., St Solomon, C. (2003). Synthesis of photographic quality facial composites using evolutionary algorithms. In R. Harvey St J. A. Bangham (Eds.), Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference 2003 (pp. 221-230). London: British Machine Vision Association.

Gillenson, M., St Chandrasekaren, B. (1975). A heuristic strategy for developing human facial images on a CRT. Pattern Recognition, 7,187-196.

Goldstein, A. & Chance, J. (1971). Visual recognition memory for complex configurations. Perception and Psychophysics, 9, 237 241.

Goldstein, A. G., Chance, J. E., & Schneller, G. R. (1989). Frequency of eyewitness identification in criminal cases: A survey of prosecutors. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 71 74.

Goldstein, A. G., Johnson, K. S., & Chance, J. E. (1979). Does fluency of face description imply superior face recognition? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13(1), 15 18.

Green, D.L. & Geiselman, R.E. (1989). Building composite facial images: Effects of feature saliency and delay of construction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 714 721.

Guenter, B., Grimm, C., Wood, D., Malvar, H., & Pighin, F. (1998). TI: Making faces. Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Computer Graphics. ACM, New York, NY, USA. p 55 65

Haig, N. D. (1986). Investigating face recognition with an image processing computer. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. leeves, & A. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 410-425). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Nijhoff.

Hancock P.J.B. Evolving faces from principal components. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. vol.32, no.2; May 2000; p.327 33

Hancock, P. J. B. (2000). Evolving faces from principal components. Behaviour Research methods, Instruments and Computers, 32,327-333.

Hancock, P. J. B., Bruce, V. & Burton, M. A. (1998). A comparison of two computer-based face identification systems with human perceptions of faces. Vision Research, 38, 2277-2288.

Hancock, P.J.B., Burton, A.M. & Bruce, V. (1996). Face processing: human perception and principal component analysis. Memory and cognition, 24, 26 40.

Hasel, L. E., & Wells, G. L. (2007). Catching the bad guy: Morphing composite faces helps. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 193-208.

Higgins J. Photofit. Personal Computer World. vol.6, no.11; Nov. 1983; p.162 5

Hole, Graham J.. Configurational factors in the perception of unfamiliar faces. Perception. 1994; Vol 23(1): 65 74

Homa, G. (1983). The law enforcement composite sketch artist. West Berlin, NJ: Author.

IQ Biometrix (1998). FACES [Computer software]. InterQuest, Inc.

Jackson, R. L. (1967). Occupied with crime. London: Harrap.

Jenkins, F., & Davies, G. (1985). Contamination of facial memory through exposure to misleading composite pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 70(1): 164 176

Jungman N, Levi A, Aperman A & Edelman S. (1994). Automatic classification of police mugshot album using principal component analysis. Proceedings of the SPIE The International Society for Optical Engineering. vol.2243; p.591 4

Kemp, R., Towell, N., & Pike, G. (1997). When seeing should not be believing: Photographs, credit cards and fraud. Applied Cognitive Psychology, I I , 211-222.

King, D. (1971). The use of PhotoŽt 1970-1971: A progress report. Police Research Bulletin, 18, 40-44.

Kitson, A., Darnbrough, M., & Shields, E. (1978). Let's face it. Police Research Bulletin, no. 30, pp. 7-13.

Koehn, C. E. (1996, Feb). Theoretical and applied evaluations of facial composite systems. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 56(8 B): 4640

Koehn, C. E., & Fisher, R. P. (1997). Constructing facial composites with the Mac A Mug Pro system. Psychology, Crime and Law, 3, 209 218.

Koehn, C. E., Fisher, R. P., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Using cognitive interviewing to construct facial composites. In D. Canter & L. Alison (Eds.), Psychology and Criminal Detection (pp. 41 63). Brookfield: Dartmouth.

Konen W. Comparing facial line drawings with gray level images: a case study on PHANTOMAS. Artificial Neural Networks ICANN 96. 1996 International Conference Proceedings. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany; 1996; xxv+922 pp.p.727 34

Koshimizu Hiroyasu; Tominaga Masafumi; Fujiwara Takayuki; Murakami Kazuhito. On KANSEI facial image processing for computerized facial caricaturing system PICASSOSO: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. v 6 1999, IEEE, USA. p VI 294 VI 299

Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S., Pappas, C., & Thill, D. (1997). IdentiŽcation of computer-generated facial composites. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,235-246.

Lander, Karen; Christie, Fiona; Bruce, Vicki. The role of movement in the recognition of famous faces. Memory and Cognition. 1999 Nov; Vol 27(6): 974 985

Laughery, K. R., Duval, C., & Fowler, R. H. (1977). An analysis of procedures for generating facial images (Mug File Project [Report No. UHMUG 2]). Houston, TX: University of Houston.

Laughery, K. R., Duval, C., & Wogalter, M. S. (1986). Dynamics of face recall. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, and A. W. Young (Eds.), Aspects of Face Processing (pp. 387). Dordrect: Martinus Nijhoff.

Laughery, K., & Fowler, R. (1980). Sketch artist and Identikit procedures for recalling faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65,307-316.

Laughery, K., & Smith, V. L. (1978). Suspect identiŽcation following exposure to sketches and Identikit composites. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, Detroit (pp. 631-635).

Laughery, K.R. & Smith, V.L. (1978, October). Suspect identification following exposure to sketches and Identi kit composites. Presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the Human Factors Society, Detroit, MI.

Leder, Helmut; Bruce, Vicki. Inverting line drawings of faces. Swiss Journal of Psychology. 2000 Sep; Vol 59(3): 159 169

Lee Eric S; Whalen Thom. Empirical tests of a computer suspect identification system: An alternative to mugshot albums: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools for Design Development. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Petroleum Division (Publication) PD. v 64 n 5 1994, ASME, New York, NY, USA. p 389 394

Lee, E., & Whalen, T. (1995). Computerized feature retrieval of images: Suspect identification. Ergonomics, 38(9), 1941 1957.

Lee, K. J., Byatt, G., & Rhodes, G. (2000). Caricature effects, distinctiveness and identiŽcation: Testing the face-space framework. Psychological Science, 11, 379-385.

Levi, A. M. & Almog, J. (2000). Cognitive Technology and Criminal Justice: The Police Composite, Cognitive Technology, 5(1) 26-34.

Levi, A. M. (1997). Police composites: Do they contribute to convictions? Unpublished manuscript. Jerusalem: Division of IdentiŽcation and Police Science, Israeli Police Headquarters.

Levi, A. M. (1998). Are defendants guilty if they were chosen in a lineup? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 389 407.

Levi, A. M.. Jungman. N.. Ginton, A.. Apennan. A.. & Noble. G. (1995). Using similarity judgements to conduct a mugshot album search. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 649 661.

Lin Chun Hung; Wu Ja Ling. Automatic facial feature extraction by genetic algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. v 8 n 6 1999, p 834 845

Lipton, J. (1977). On the psychology of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 90 95.

Liu, Chang Hong; Collin, Charles A; Chaudhuri, Avi. Does face recognition rely on encoding of 3 D surface? Examining the role of shape from shading and shape from stereo. Perception. 2000; Vol 29(6): 729 743

Loftus, E. F. & Greene, E. (1980). Warning: Even Memory for Faces May Be Contagious, Law and Human Behavior, 4, 323-334.

Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978) Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, Vol 4(1), 19-31

Luu, T. N. & Geiselman, R. E. (1993). Cognitive retrieval techniques and order of feature construction in the formation of composite facial images. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 9, 34 39.

Malpass, R. S., & Hughes, K. D. (1986). Formation of facial prototypes. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A.W. Young (Eds.), Aspects of Face Processing (NATO ISI Series). (pp. 154-162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands- Martinus Nijhoff

Matthews, Michael L. Discrimination of Identikit constructions of faces: Evidence for a dual processing strategy. Perception and Psychophysics. 1978 Feb; Vol 23(2): 153 161

Maudlin, M., & Laughery, K.R. (1981). Composite production effects on subsequent facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 351 357.

McNamara, J. M. Comment- Sketchy Eyewitness-Identification Procedures - A proposal to draw up legal guidelines for the use of facial composites in criminal inverstigations. 2009 Wis. L. Rev. 763 2009.pdf

McNeil, J.E., Wray, J.L., Hibler, N.S., Foster, W.D., Rhyne, C.E., & Thibault, R. (1987). Hypnosis and identikit: A study to determine the effect of using hypnosis in conjunction with the making of identi kit composites. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 63 67.

McQuiston, D. E. (2003). Verbal and visual processes in face recall: Assessing the role of perceptual expertise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at El Paso.

McQuiston, D. E., & Malpass, R. S. (2000). Use of facial composite systems in U.S. law enforcement agencies. Presented at the 2000 Biennial Meetings of the American Psychology Law Society, Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

McQuiston-Surrett, D. & Saks, M. (2008). Presenting opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences- Accuracy and impact. Hastings Law Journal, 59(5), 1159-1189.pdf

McQuiston-Surrett, D. & Topp, L. (2008). Externalizing visual images- Examining the accuracy of physical descriptions vs. facial composites as a function of the own-race bias. Experimental Psychology, 55(3), 195-202.pdf

McQuiston-Surrett, D., Douglass, A. B., & Burkhardt, S. (2008). Evaluations of facial composite evidence depends on the presence of other case factors. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13(2), 279-298.pdf

McQuiston-Surrett, D., Topp, L. D., & Malpass, R. S. (2006). Use of facial composite systems in U.S. law enforcement agencies. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 12(5), 505-517.pdf

Meissner C. A. & Brigham, J. C. (2001b). A meta analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15 (6), 603 616.

Meissner, C. A., & J. C. Brigham. (2001). A meta-analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identiŽcation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15,603-616.

Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., & Kelley, C. M. (2001). The inßuence of retrieval processes in verbal overshadowing. Memory and Cognition, 29,176-186.

Michael SD. Computer aided facial reconstruction for forensic identification. International Workshop on Volume Graphics. Preprint. Univ. Wales Swansea, Swansea, UK; 1999; 2 vol. xi+407 pp.p.239 64 vol.2

Min, R., Markham, R., & Davies, G. M.(1988). Making faces: Developmental trends in the construction and recognition of face composites. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 123-137.

Murray, Janice E; Yong, Esther; Rhodes, Gillian. Revisiting the perception of upside down faces. Psychological Science. 2000 Nov; Vol 11(6): 492 496.

Nishino Junji; Yamamoto Masahiro; Shirai Haruhiko; Odaka Tomohiro; Ogura Hisakazu. Fuzzy linguistic facial caricature drawing system. SO: International Conference on Knowledge Based Intelligent Electronic Systems, Proceedings, KES. v 2 1998, p 15 20

Oliver, M. B., Jackson, R. L., Moses, N. N., & DangerŽeld, C. L. (2004). The face of crime: Viewers' memory of race-related facial features of individuals pictured in the news. Journal of Communication, 54, 88-104.

O' Toole, Alice J; Bartlett, James C; Abdi, HerveA signal detection model applied to the stimulus: Understanding covariances in face recognition experiments in the context of face sampling distributions.. Visual Cognition. 2000 Apr; Vol 7(4): 437 463

O' Toole, Alice J; Vetter, Thomas; Blanz, Volker. Three dimensional shape and two dimensional surface reflectance contributions to face recognition: An application of three dimensional morphing. Vision Research. 1999 Sep; Vol 39(18): 3145 3155

Oliver Rodriguez, Juan Carlos. Electrophysiological measures of facial perception. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. 1995 Aug; Vol 56(2 B): 1143

O'Toole, A. j., Abdi, H., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Valentin, D. (1995). A perceptual learning the Dry of the information in faces. In T. Valentine (Ed.), Cognitive and computational aspects of face recognition: Explorations in face space (pp. 159-182). London: Routledge.

O'Toole, A.J. & Thompson, J.L. (1993).. An X Windows tool for synthesizing face images from eigenvectors. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 25(1), 41 7.

Owens, C. (1970, November). ldentikit enters its second decade-Ever growing at home and abroad. Finger Print and IdentiŽcation Magazine, pp. 3-8,11-17.

Parks, Theodore E.; Coss, Richard C.; Coss, Craig S.. Thatcher and the Cheshire cat: Context and the processing of facial features. Perception. 1985; Vol 14(6): 747 754

Penry, J. (1971). Looking at faces and remembering them: A guide to facial identification. London: Elek Books.

Penserga, B. (2003, October 20). Police sketch artists yield to computer composites. The Daily Times (Delaware),

Pigott, M. & Brigham, J. C. (1985). Relationship between accuracy of prior description and facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 547 555.

Poole, O. (2004, January 21). I know what it's like to want justice. The Daily Telegraph (London), p. 14

Rakover, S. (2002). Featural vs. conŽgurational information in faces: A conceptual and empirical analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 93,1-30.

Rakover, S. S., & Cahlon, B. (1996). To catch a thief with a recognition test: The model and some empirical results. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 423 468.

Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), 283-293.

Reinitz, M. T., Lammers, W. J. & Cochran, B. P. (1992). Memory-conjubnction errors - Misconbintion of stored stimulus feature can propduce illusions of memory. Memory and Cognition, 20(1), 1-11.pdf

Rhodes, G. (1988). Looking at faces: First order and second order features as determinants of facial appearance. Perception, 17, 43 63.

Rhodes, G. (1996). Superportraits: Caricatures and recognition. Psychology Press. Hove.

Rhodes, G., Brake, S., Taylor, K., & Tan, S. (1989). Expertise and configural coding in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 313 331.

Rosenthal, Y., de Jager, G. & Greene, J. (1998). A computerised face recall system using eigenfaces. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cape Town.

Saks, M. J., Constantine, L., Dolezal, M., Garcia, J., Titus, C., Horton, G., Leavell, T., Muntz, J., Rivera, L., Stewart, J., Strumpf, F., & VanderHaar, H. (2001). Toward a Model Act for the Prevention and Remedy of Erroneous Convictions. New England Law Review, 35(3), 669 683.

Scapinello, F. F. & Yarmey, A. D. (1970). The role of familiarity and orientation in immediate and delayed recognition of pictorial stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 21, 329 331.

Scheck, B. (March, 2002). The DNA Exoneration Cases. In Saul M. Kassin (Chair), Actual Innocence: Antecedents and Consequences of Wrongful Convictions. Symposium conducted at the 2002 Biennial Meeting of the American Psychology Law Society, Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, Austin, TX.

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2001). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.

Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., Norton, C., Chalkley, B., Jewett, J., &. Davis, K. (1996, February). Building a composite of a stranger: Young children's use of the Identi-Kit. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Hilton Head, NC.

Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configurational processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221 242.

Sergent, J. (1988). Face perception and the right hemisphere. In L. Weiskrantz (Ed.), Thought without Language (pp. 108 131). New York: Oxford University Press.

Shaharazam, I. (1986). The Mac-a-Mug Pro manual. Milwaukee, WI: Shaharazam.

Shapiro, P. & Penrod, S.D. (1986). A meta analysis of the facial identification literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139 156.

Shepherd, J. W. & Ellis, H. (1996). Face recall – methods and problems. In S.L. Sporer, R.S. Malpass and G. Kšhnken (Eds.), Psychological Issues in Eyewitness Identification (pp. 87 115), Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Shepherd, J. W. (1986). A computer based face image retrieval system. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, and A. W. Young (Eds.), Aspects of Face Processing. Dordrect: Martinus Nijhoff.

Shepherd, J. W., Ellis, H. & Davies, G. (1982). Identification Evidence: A Psychological Evaluation. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.

Shepherd, J. W., Ellis, H. D., McMurran, M., & Davies, G. M. (1978). Effect of character attribution on PhotoŽt construction of a face. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8,263-268.

Shepherd, J., Davies, G., (St Ellis, H. (1981). Studies of cue saliency. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Perceiving and remembering faces (pp. 105-132). London: Academic Press.

Sirovich, L., & Kirby, M. (1987). Low dimensional procedure for the characterization of human faces. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 4, 519-524.

Smith and Wesson (2000). IdentiKit 2000. Smith & Wesson.

Solso, R. L. & McCarthy, J. E.. Prototype formation of faces: A case of pseudo memory. British Journal of Psychology. 1981 Nov; Vol 72(4): 499 503

Sondern, F. (1964, April). The box that catches criminals. Readers' Digest, pp. 37-44.

Sporer, S. L. (1988). Long term improvement of facial recognition through visual rehearsal. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory (pp. 182 188). London: Wiley.

Sporer, S. L. (1989). Verbal and visual processes in person identification. In H. Wegener, F. Losel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal Behavior and the Justice System: Psychological Perspectives (pp. 303 324). New York: Springer.

Sporer, S. L. (1992). An archival analysis of person descriptions. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology Law Society in San Diego, CA.

Sporer, S. L. (1996). Psychological aspects of person descriptions. In S.L. Sporer, R.S. Malpass and G. Kšhnken (Eds.), Psychological Issues in Eyewitness Identification (pp. 53 86), Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Tanaka, J. W. & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A(2), 225 245.

Tanaka, J. W. & Sengco, J. A. (1997). Features and their configuration in face recognition. Memory and Cognition, 25(5), 583 592.

Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (2003). The holistic representation of faces. In M. A. Peterson & G. Rhodes. Perception of faces, objects and scenes (pp. 53-74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, K. T. (2001). Forensic art and illustration. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. NCJ 178240.

Topp, L., McQuiston, D. E., & Malpass, R. S. (2003, July). Exploring composite production and its subsequent effects on eyewitness memory. Presented at the 2003 Meetings of the European-American Psychology-Law/American Psychology-Law Society, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Tredoux, C. (2002). A direct measure of facial similarity and its relation to human similarity perceptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8,180-193.

Tredoux, C., Rosenthal, Y., Nunez, D., & da Costa, L. (1999). Face reconstruction using a conŽgural, eigenface-based composite system. Paper presented to the third meeting of the Society for Applied Research Memory and Cognition, Boulder, Colorado, July 1999. Retrieved May 12, 2003 from http://web.uctac.za/depts/psychology/plato/

Tredoux, C.G. (1996). Evaluating identification parades with measures of facial similarity. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cape Town.

Tredoux, C.G., Rosenthal, Y., da Costa, L. & Nunez, D. (1999). Face reconstruction using a configural, eigenface based composite system. Paper presented at SARMAC III, Boulder Colorado, July 1999.

Turk, M. & Pentland, A. (1991). Eigenfaces for recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 71 86.

Turk, M., & Pentland, A. (1991). Eigenfaces for recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 71-86.

Uhl Robert G Jr.; da Vitoria Lobo Niels; Kwon Young H. Recognizing a facial image from a police sketch. IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision Proceedings. 1994, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, USA,94TH06742. p 129 137

Uhl Robert G Jr.; Lobo Niels da Vitoria. Framework for recognizing a facial image from a police sketch. Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1996, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, USA,96CB35909. p 586 593

Valentine, T. & Bruce, V. (1986). The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 61, 259 273.

Valentine, T. (1991a). A uniŽed account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161-204.

Valentine, T. (1991b). Representation and process in face recognition. In R. Watt (Ed.), Pattern recognition by man and machine (pp. 107-124). (Vol. 14 in 'Vision and Visual Dysfunction' series edited by J. Cronly-Dillon) London: Macmillan Press.

Valentine, T. (1995). Cognitive and computational aspects of face recognition: Explorations in face space. London: Routledge.

Valentine, T. (2001). Face-space models of face recognition. In: M. J. Wenger & J. T. Townsend (eds.) Computational, geometric, and process perspectives on facial cognition: Contexts and challenges (pp. 83-113). Mahwah: LEA.

Valentine, T. (Ed.) (1995). Explorations in face space. London: Routledge.

Valentine, T., & Endo, M. (1992). Towards an exemplar model of face processing: The effects of race and distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 671-703.

Warnick, D. H. (1981). Procedural effects on facial composite performance. Presented t the meetings of the Midwestern Pasychological Association, 4.30-5.2, Detroit, MI.

Wells, G. L. & Hasel, L. E. (2007). Facial composite production by eyewitnesses. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science, 16, 6-16.

Wells, G. L. & Hryciw, B. (1984). Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations. Memory & Cognition, 12 (4), 338 344.

Wells, G. L. (1985). Verbal descriptions of faces from memory: Are they diagnostic of identification accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(4), 619 626.

Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto, Canada: Carswell.

Wells, G. L. (1995). Scientific study of witness memory: Implications for public and legal policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 726 731.

Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1988). What is the best way to encode faces? In M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, & R. Sykes (Eds.), Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues (pp. 163 168). New York: Wiley.

Wells, G. L., Charman, S. D., & Olson, E. A. (2005). Building face composites can harm lineup identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 147-157.

Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55(6), 581 598.

Wells, G. L., Charman, S. D., & Olson, E. A. (2005). Building face composites can harm lineup identiŽcation performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, II, 147-157.

Wells, G.L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R.S., Fulero, S.M., and Brimacombe, C.A.E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 23(6), 603-647.

Wogalter, M. S. & Marwitz, D. (1991). Face composite construction: In view and from memory quality and improvement with practice. Ergonomics, 34, 459 468.

Wogalter, M. S. (1987). Face memory: Effects of verbal description and visual rehearsal. Unpublished manuscript, University of Richmond, Virginia.

Wogalter, M. S., Laughery, K. R. & Thompson, B. G. (1987) Face Composite construction- effects on subsequent recognition performance. Unpublished manuscript

Wogalter, M. S., Marwitz, D. B. & Leonard, D. C.. Suggestiveness in photospread line ups: Similarity induces distinctiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1992 Sep Oct; Vol 6(5): 443 453

Wogalter, M., & Marwitz, D. (1991). Face composite construction: In-view and from-memory quality and improvement with practice. Ergonomics, 34, 459-468.

Wogalter, M.S. (1991). Effects of post exposure description and imaging on subsequent face recognition performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 35, 575 579.

Wogalter, M.S. (1996). Describing faces from memory: Accuracy and effects on subsequent recognition performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40, 536 540.

Woodhead, M. M., Baddeley, A. D., & Simmonds, D. C. (1979). On training people to recognize faces. Ergonomics, 22, 333 343.

Young, A. W. & Willis, H. D. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of research on face processing. Amsterdam. North Holland.

Young, A., Hellawell, D., & Hay, D. C. (1987). Configurational information in face perception. Perception, 16, 747 759.

Yu, C. J. & Geiselman, R. E. (1993). Effect of constructing Identikit composites on photospread identification performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(3), 280 292.

 

VI. List of Legal Cases.